Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Toady

Current what needs to be added or thought through before we can start seeing Regeneration (or rather the ability to regrow bodyparts or heal major damage)?

[arkhometha]

Toady

Current what needs to be added or thought through before we can start seeing Regeneration (or rather the ability to regrow bodyparts or heal major damage)?

For Dwarfs? I think it's not in the plans. For beasts? Werebeasts already do this.

[King Mir]

Toady, modding the old dwarven economy back in is one of my favourite things to do with a long termish fort. I was just wondering if anytime after this release cycle you could consider fixing it as I thought this was something that would go in the caravan arc?

The caravan arc is about making trade happen between settlements, and is unrelated to the old dwarven economy.

Maybe some version of the dwarven economy will come back at some point, but it's not on the dev-list.

It is to on the Dev List, and was on the bumbled quick release short term dev list we had not so long ago.

Its defiantly a near future item.  And I can see having Inns for Fort Mode requiring the fort mode economy being reduxed, if ToadyOne and ThreeToes go in that direction after this release.

World economy is on the dev list. In fort dwarven economy is not. And no, inns for fort mode don't necessarily need the fort economy to have working inns. It's not in the plans for it.

Toady has said that some form of fort economy will probably come back eventually, but if it were coming any time soon, it'd be on the dev-list.

[NW_Kohaku]

For Dwarfs? I think it's not in the plans. For beasts? Werebeasts already do this.

That's kind of a hack side-effect of how were-transformations are implemented.  It means all transformations work like that (which isn't necessarily desirable) and nothing else does work like that, so no trolls that regenerate, for example (which may be desirable).

[Mesa]

With new mobility-related stuff, does that mean we can see grappling hooks happening?

Also, slightly unrelated, but are there plans for aimed ranged attacks (firing and throwing), so that we aren't just hoping that we hit something worth hitting?

Yeah.

[BFEL]

I have an interesting one:

Since in-game worldgens are going to be a thing, and many mods require a new worldgen to actually start working...will you be able to say, play some vanilla for awhile, then mod guns into the raws and do a in game worldgen and suddenly everyone has guns?

[Putnam]

I have an interesting one:

Since in-game worldgens are going to be a thing, and many mods require a new worldgen to actually start working...will you be able to say, play some vanilla for awhile, then mod guns into the raws and do a in game worldgen and suddenly everyone has guns?

No, not at all.

Since dwarves could now, theoretically, become necromancers during play, do they require any reading skill to get a tome from a god? Or is the skill just granted for them upon recieving their powers? And would it target fort mode dwarves or adventurer dwarves differently than normal?

I haven't continued everything from world gen yet.  That'll take more time, and we've already taken way too much of it.  Each of the interactions has tags saying whether it is teachable and how, so it'll depend on how the knowledge is given.  If the god sets it down on a tablet, and it isn't some kind of magical tablet, the critter will have to read.

[Caldfir]

In regards to BFEL's question and Putnam's response:

I believe that Putnam is correct - getting guns to show up during gameplay-worldgen (we need a name for this... succession?) without having been in worldgen won't work (unless something has changed significantly), but not for he cited reason.  In that quote, Toady is talking about interactions/abilities like vampirism.  Presumably guns are a weapon, not a skill, so the issue is elsewhere. 

The problem is that a weapon type "showing up" is decided by the entity raws, which are copied into the world save at the start of worldgen.  There are some workarounds to get it so that your fortress alone could produce guns post-worldgen, but actually getting them into the hands of a civ (so you can see people out on the street with them) is a different matter. 

This might change whenever Toady updates the economic code to be a little more reasonable with materials available and goods produced, since right now, the game isn't very good at having civilizations produce goods based on raw-defined reactions.  Right now, dwarves always have steel, even when the civ has no access to iron or flux (in addition to a whole bunch of other strangeness), plus weapons are not produced by reactions (not at the vanilla forge anyway). 

So, barring someone doing something really sneaky and clever I haven't thought of (or hacking your savefiles somehow) this sadly won't be possible in the upcoming release.  As I said though, once some more economic stuff gets moved over to the raws, the issue will likely be resolved. 

[Putnam]

(I was specifically citing the "not everything has been moved over" part)

[My Name is Immaterial]

Toady, what is the planned shape of the world? Will it be a sphere? A cylinder?
Inspired by this thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=122411.0
The OP was concerned about distortion of maps as they approached the poles, making landmasses seem larger, like Greenland. DF doesn't do that.
Edit: Thanks NW_Kohaku

[Cruxador]

Toady, what is the shape of the world?
Inspired by this thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=122411.0

I can almost guarantee his answer will be something like "right now it's just a square". There might be interesting future development with more advanced cosmology and whatnot in the future but I don't think the physical shape of the planet is something Toady has worried about much.

[NW_Kohaku]

Toady, what is the shape of the world?
Inspired by this thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=122411.0

You should give the context of the question in a succinct format, rather than just leaving a thread link for Toady to go after - he already is just skimming over this thread.

More pointed questions to the topic would be, "Does the map represent the whole world?" and "Given infinite time to get over programming complications, what shape of world would you most want to make DF into?"

[WillowLuman]

Might we ever see such things as passing through one edge of the world and coming out the other side (like a sphere) or falling off the edge of the world?

[BradUffner]

Might we ever see such things as passing through one edge of the world and coming out the other side (like a sphere) or falling off the edge of the world?

In most grid based games where you can wrap around the world you either end up with a cylinder or a torus.  Getting a true sphere would involve some VERY tricky math and Display tricks in order to get reducing width tiles (or reduced number of tiles) as your approach the "poles".  IMHO it isn't really worth the headache, but if anyone could pull it off, the great Toad could.

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

Toady, what is the shape of the world?
Inspired by this thread: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=122411.0

You should give the context of the question in a succinct format, rather than just leaving a thread link for Toady to go after - he already is just skimming over this thread.

More pointed questions to the topic would be, "Does the map represent the whole world?" and "Given infinite time to get over programming complications, what shape of world would you most want to make DF into?"

In My Name is Immaterial's defense, I think the question as it is already stands on its own fairly well, so Toady could decide quite easily to not look at the thread itself. I don't think if the question had been given like that without a link to another thread, anyone would have complained that the question wasn't clear by itself.